For RATE rebuttals, see the ASA (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm). (Note: don’t fall for the lie that my critique has been “effectively rebutted” by Baumgardner. Note the dates of his rebuttal and my critique, and the fact that my critique references and answers the claims in his rebuttal as well as in the original RATE report.)

It is disturbing to see YECs continue to repeat these old, falacious PRATTs, especially when they don’t believe the arguments themselves! (Batten notes that many of these are based on “uniformitarianism” [sic] which he rejects.) Why do they do this? Are they more concerned about defending their positions than about accuracy and truth? Are they unable to perform basic scientific reasoning? Are they intentionally trying to deceive the unscientific public? Are they all in the mold of Carl Baugh and Harry Rimmer?

I have never seen a scientific argument for a young earth which can withstand scrutiny. Not a single one. Most can be demolished by an intelligent high school student. To paraphrase Hugh Ross, the scientific evidence for a YOUNG earth is slightly weaker than the scientific evidence for a FLAT earth.